Homosexuality not included.

[McBell]

Because there is no cherry-picking on the behalf of the supporters >.<

In Today's society people can lose their jobs for attempting to publish an article against homosexuality, even if it describes a negative aspect of it in an unbiased light. People cite philosophies of ancient times to support their views, I cited one that's merely 30 years old and it's instantly tossed out. Show me a source that states something otherwise.

now you are attempting to support your unsubstantiated claim with even more unsubstantiated claims and then taking the stance "Prove Me Wrong".

Either you can support your claim or you cannot.
So far, you have not.

Now the question is:

Are you going to support your claim?
​

 

[fallingblood]

Let's be honest, Jesus wasn't really a great supporter of the typical Jewish attitudes of the time, was he?

I would say that he was, for the most part. Much of his teachings were not unique. It is what happened after his death, and the teachings that grew up from that that made him seem more radical.

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Praying at work is religious behavior and frowned upon. You keep refuting my arguments in logically fallacious ways like calling them "ludicrous", etc... Yet, you make completely ridiculous assertions about the tolerance of religion and opposing views in the workplace. And, actually, they could refuse to hire you for being "Thugee". No company is going to hire someone who has a needlessly violent or aggressive disposition, that is a horrible counter argument.

It's an appropriate counter argument to your hand-wringing nonsense. The only kind of prayer at work which is frowned upon is the kind Jesus would have frowned upon himself.

This is common knowledge, but I posted random sources for you anyways.

What, that tripe from the 70's? Do better.

Ah, but that doesn't properly describe my argument. Mine is actually the opposite. They may drink from our (societies')fountain, but may not request a new one be built.

Why not, when the water from your fountain is undrinkable to them?

 

[Spirited]

now you are attempting to support your unsubstantiated claim with even more unsubstantiated claims and then taking the stance "Prove Me Wrong".

Either you can support your claim or you cannot.
So far, you have not.

Now the question is:

Are you going to support your claim?
​

Your claim that there was conservative cherry picking on my end of the argument and instantly refuting it without commenting on it's contents was also unsubstantiated. Your point?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Or perhaps you are looking for choir members?

Isn't that a little uncalled for?

 

[A. T. Henderson]

I would say that he was, for the most part. Much of his teachings were not unique. It is what happened after his death, and the teachings that grew up from that that made him seem more radical.

Hmm, well it's certainly true that his teachings had much in common with a lot of the other new ideas emerging thanks to the (largely forced) interaction between Jewish and Roman/Greek culture, but I have difficulty seeing them as anything other than radical when compared to the mainstream of the time.

The NT itself devotes a fair amount of time to pointing out just how new a lot of his ideas and interpretations were, and how much effort he had to make to avoid openly blaspheming in order to present them.

 

[McBell]

Your claim that there was conservative cherry picking on my end of the argument and instantly refuting it without commenting on it's contents was also unsubstantiated. Your point?

I never made any such claim.

I flat out stated the fact that The Family Research Center is not a source for anything but agenda filled selective cherry picking.

How you were able to replace "The Family Research Center" in the above statement with "Spirited" is completely beyond me.

Now that your strawman has been outed for the blatant diversion tactic it is, do you have any intentions of supporting your unsubstantiated claims or are you content with your sad attempts at diversion?

 

[McBell]

Isn't that a little uncalled for?

How so?
You are the one who keeps repeating the fact that you are unable to masturbate without inappropriate thoughts of others as though you are looking for others to jump in and also admit to the same affliction in support of your argument.

I am merely flat out asking if that is what you were doing.

How exactly is that uncalled for?

 

[Spirited]

It's an appropriate counter argument to your hand-wringing nonsense. The only kind of prayer at work which is frowned upon is the kind Jesus would have frowned upon himself.

That was fairly inflammatory for someone who was interested in tolerance. The only kind of prayer that is frowned upon at work is the kind that can be detected or takes time out of your day. That pretty much covers every kind of prayer that I'm aware of. Jesus taught his followers to not stand a street corner, make a public display, and flail your arms while you pray. He did, however, tell them to bow their heads take a moment and utter thanks or conversation to the Lord.

What, that tripe from the 70's? Do better.

Present me with a single article, viable or otherwise, that counters my "tripe". I was not aware that demography was as volatile as biology in it's validity over time.

Why not, when the water from your fountain is undrinkable to them?

Homosexuals are just as capable of conceiving children and having families as everyone else, can you explain what you mean and/or back it up with a source?

 

[Spirited]

I never made any such claim.

I flat out stated the fact that The Family Research Center is not a source for anything but agenda filled selective cherry picking.

How you were able to replace "The Family Research Center" in the above statement with "Spirited" is completely beyond me.

Now that your strawman has been outed for the blatant diversion tactic it is, do you have any intentions of supporting your unsubstantiated claims or are you content with your sad attempts at diversion?

How about this, you use Google and find a list of sources you deem valid and I will pick among them and excerpt from them that which supports my argument. I do not wish to fish through things until you are satisfied with the sociologists, psychologists, or therapists that I find works of.

 

[Fester]

Suppose I'm not being gluttonous at Mc D's? Would you still call me names?

We'd yell "glutton-lover!" and throw ketchup packets at you.

 

[McBell]

How about this, you use Google and find a list of sources you deem valid and I will pick among them and excerpt from them that which supports my argument. I do not wish to fish through things until you are satisfied with the sociologists, psychologists, or therapists that I find works of.

Again:

​

Do your own homework.
​

 

[A. T. Henderson]

That was fairly inflammatory for someone who was interested in tolerance.

Oh please.

The only kind of prayer that is frowned upon at work is the kind that can be detected or takes time out of your day. That pretty much covers every kind of prayer that I'm aware of.

Rubbish. Sitting quietly at your desk for a couple of minutes couldn't possibly attract negative attention.

Jesus taught his followers to not stand a street corner, make a public display, and flail your arms while you pray. He did, however, tell them to bow their heads take a moment and utter thanks or conversation to the Lord.

It's not necessary to do it out loud, is it? Or can God only hear you if you verbalise?

Present me with a single article, viable or otherwise, that counters my "tripe". I was not aware that demography was as volatile as biology in it's validity over time.

I don't need to. It's countered by the fact that it's drawn from a demographic which is currently virtually non-existent, which has been eliminated in the decades between the study and the current day. When that "study" was done, it was pretty much impossible to be openly homosexual. If you were, you rendered yourself virtually unemployable and left yourself open to physical attack.

There was no possibility of being able to maintain an open, monogamous, homosexual relationship, and so promiscuity was the only route by which homosexual desires could be satisfied. Consequently, the "study" you've chosen to use as your source presents a sub-culture which existed during a certain era, the conditions for which are no longer present. If you cannot present anything current to support your argument, then your argument is unsupported.

Homosexuals are just as capable of conceiving children and having families as everyone else, can you explain what you mean and/or back it up with a source?

Homosexuals are not, in general, capable of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex. That's pretty much what being homosexual means. Why, then, should they be forced to endure being married to someone for whom they feel no attraction?

What, precisely, is your reason for denying someone the right to marry the person they love, regardless of that persons gender? Is it merely because it's unpalatable to you? Why should your feelings on the matter have any bearing?

 

[Fester]

The Bible does talk about homosexuality, but it simply doesn't use the modern term. 1 Chorinthians for example makes it clear that homosexuality is being talked about.

Not saying the Bible is right, but that it does in fact talk about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is mentioned, no doubt. But it's never condemned outright. The reference in I Corinthians, if I'm not mistaken, is actually about idolatry, and the many things it could lead to. But it is the idolatry that is being condemned, and not the homosexuality.

 

[Fester]

What if I don't enjoy my Big Mac?

Then you qualify to be enrolled in supermodel school.

 

[Spirited]

Oh please.

Awww, you asked politely this time.

Rubbish. Sitting quietly at your desk for a couple of minutes couldn't possibly attract negative attention.

I havn't always had a desk job.

It's not necessary to do it out loud, is it? Or can God only hear you if you verbalise?

As a Unificationist, it is part of my religious practice to speak very softly while I pray.

I don't need to. It's countered by the fact that it's drawn from a demographic which is currently virtually non-existent, which has been eliminated in the decades between the study and the current day. When that "study" was done, it was pretty much impossible to be openly homosexual. If you were, you rendered yourself virtually unemployable and left yourself open to physical attack.

Um, wow. Talk about unsubstantial claims. People who were gay thirty years ago are "eliminated", now? Yikes, AIDS is even more prevalent than I thought.

There was no possibility of being able to maintain an open, monogamous, homosexual relationship, and so promiscuity was the only route by which homosexual desires could be satisfied. Consequently, the "study" you've chosen to use as your source presents a sub-culture which existed during a certain era, the conditions for which are no longer present. If you cannot present anything current to support your argument, then your argument is unsupported.

I would like to quote you here, "Oh please".

Homosexuals are not, in general, capable of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex. That's pretty much what being homosexual means. Why, then, should they be forced to endure being married to someone for whom they feel no attraction?

Many consider almost every human being to have a spectrum of sexuality. Talk about needing citation. (Kinsey)

What, precisely, is your reason for denying someone the right to marry the person they love, regardless of that persons gender? Is it merely because it's unpalatable to you? Why should your feelings on the matter have any bearing?

They can be in a relationship, I don't care. They can own a house, I don't care. I just don't think that there should be a right for adoption and I don't see any reason for giving them tax cuts just because they love each other. I don't think single parents should be allowed to adopt either, just to clarify.


Kinsey:
http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/ak-hhscale.html

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm sure you have plenty of references for me, PM me?

Sure, I have a few gay friends. I'll hook you up.

 

[Spirited]

Sure, I have a few gay friends. I'll hook you up.

Great, just none of your sloppies please.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Great, just none of your sloppies please.

Don't worry, I'm sure I can find someone who will treat a nice, pretty boy like yourself like the princess you deserve to be.

 

[Fester]

You make no sense. Yes he was speaking on marriage and divorce. Take another look at the verses

1 Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, 'Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?'
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'

Right here he not only defines marriage but answers the Pharisees question. Marriage is sacred because a Man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with his wife


7 They said to him, 'Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?'
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife -- I am not speaking of an illicit marriage -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'



10 The disciples said to him, 'If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.'
11 But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.
12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'

And right here Jesus comments on how some are to be married and some are not to be married. Divorce is still wrong, just as "homosexual marriage". Why? Because Man and Women are to be joined into one flesh. They shouldn't be separated, and it can not be man and man or women and women.

Except that nobody was asking him about homosexual marriage, and he was not referring to homosexual marriage when he answered.